Philosophers: scurrilous, petty, irrelevant, silly, intellectual wimps

**Cephus** · 16th March 2012, 10:57 AM

Quote by: ric

philosophy has peer review at those top levels, just like science. of course philosophy has systemic, educational, etc dissuasion of garbage. however, i would give ground that not every student, major, or educator knows what theyre talking about.

I think that's a major problem, if not with philosophy itself, then with the people who use "philosophy" as a code word that they think gives their views validity. I won't deny that a lot of people who claim philosophical discipline are actually doing philosophy, any more than pseudo-scientists are doing science. However, it seems to me that a lot of people I run into who claim to be arguing a particular philosophy, use the terminology as a means to put their beliefs beyond criticism. If you criticize their position, you inherently criticize philosophy and they will dismiss your criticism on that basis.

**el ايمان** · 16th March 2012, 03:32 PM

Quote by: Cephus

claim to be arguing a particular philosophy, use the terminology as a means to put their beliefs beyond criticism. If you criticize their position, you inherently criticize philosophy and they will dismiss your criticism on that basis.

Could you give a specific scenario? I'm having some trouble following the conversation.

**ric** · 16th March 2012, 04:26 PM

@grandpa
thats not doing philosophy unless were counting religion as a part of that, which is highly suspect at this point in time

@cephus
i dont know if its some huge problem. educators in every subject (including science) sometimes dont know what theyre talking about. its hard work to do good/real philosophy, just as im sure its hard to do good economics.

**Cephus** · 16th March 2012, 11:54 PM

Quote by: el ايمان

Could you give a specific scenario? I'm having some trouble following the conversation.

Unfortunately, the specific scenario I'm thinking of comes from another forum and is honestly far too complex to get into.

**JimmyNic** · 18th March 2012, 08:32 PM

Quote by: ric

no. thats a MAJOR part of philosophy - matching up to reality.
you cannot make a compelling/valid case for "anything", as someone who actually does/has done philosophy would know

Ah, I disagree. But I don't think here is the time.

Quote by: ric

philosophy has peer review at those top levels, just like science. of course philosophy has systemic, educational, etc dissuasion of garbage. however, i would give ground that not every student, major, or educator knows what theyre talking about.

True of all fields.

**ric** · 20th March 2012, 08:54 PM

@jimmy
which part do you disagree about and why? that (good) philosophy can/does involve trying to make a case for the real world existence of cthulhu/mermaids/etc? or that philosophers dont spend a lot of time and effort trying to match up the theory to reality?

**JimmyNic** · 24th March 2012, 05:58 PM

Quote by: ric

@jimmy
which part do you disagree about and why? that (good) philosophy can/does involve trying to make a case for the real world existence of cthulhu/mermaids/etc? or that philosophers dont spend a lot of time and effort trying to match up the theory to reality?

Well it depends what you mean when you say a valid case for "anything". When it comes to ethics I suspect that most positions can be justified, although since one has to be consistent across various issues not all combinations of views are possible. One cannot support views on separate issues that invoke contradictory logic, at least if you are trying to build an ethical code that spans all issues.

The existence of mermaids is not a philosophical matter but one of scientific fact. If we assume that the universe we appear to inhabit exists in a tangible, objective form (and do not subscribe to subjective reality or the theory suggested in the Matrix) then the facts of the universe are not open to a philosophical debate - there is a fact of them or there is not. In an objective universe God exists or he does not, the question is therefore scientific, although in the event that we cannot collect enough empirical data we might then fall back to philosophy in the mean time.

There are many areas of life which are not objective. Morality is, in my view, one of them. I think most moral positions are entirely defensible, even ones which we may find highly unpalatable. We might also ask questions about language or art that are not scientific questions either but more about a spectrum of viewpoints. For me philosophy exists as a discipline for discerning truth or collecting observations, which I suppose is much the same aim as science. But while science is based on empiricism philosophy seems to me to be about interpretation or speculation. But perhaps the two disciplines are not that dissimilar. I may have to amend my opinion later, but that's my answer for now.

**Charlatan** · 24th March 2012, 10:05 PM

I am sure that many philosophers, with more confidence, could write a compelling book about what is right or wrong. If they had the confidence and resources, they could help in teaching people more about issues, then it could find it's way into law. I think too many people regaurd philosophy as if it were about science of working, but that is nearly useless! I mean, if it were discord, for instance, or not, where would that help scientists? They would have something from a 'dream' they need to put into theory, but, it could provide an inspiration for these things, so by itself it is useless.

So as far as calling philosophers of today wimps, it is the public that is uniterested in reading their works.

**Cephus** · 25th March 2012, 02:36 PM

Quote by: Charlatan

I am sure that many philosophers, with more confidence, could write a compelling book about what is right or wrong. If they had the confidence and resources, they could help in teaching people more about issues, then it could find it's way into law. I think too many people regaurd philosophy as if it were about science of working, but that is nearly useless! I mean, if it were discord, for instance, or not, where would that help scientists? They would have something from a 'dream' they need to put into theory, but, it could provide an inspiration for these things, so by itself it is useless.

So as far as calling philosophers of today wimps, it is the public that is uniterested in reading their works.

A compelling book isn't necessarily a factually true book. Lots of pseudo-science books are written that interest a lot of people, yet are entirely loads of horse shit. Compelling content doesn't make it worthwhile.

**BlackJack** · 30th March 2012, 12:56 PM

Quote by: Cephus

A compelling book isn't necessarily a factually true book. Lots of pseudo-science books are written that interest a lot of people, yet are entirely loads of horse shit. Compelling content doesn't make it worthwhile.

If it's a good book, then it should have a right to be in history.